Fomapan 100 and 400

[braxus]

I've never tried Foma before. I've read it needs special development for starters. Is that true and what is involved? I use Xtol straight. How do either of these two films compare to what else is out there? I know a lot of people like their look, but I don't know what that look is. Is it worth bothering with if you have a large stash of other film in the freezer? If so, what is needed to develop my own rolls? Can some post some good samples of the 100 and 400 that shows off what makes this film popular?

 

[abruzzi]

no special dev needed. I don't like 400 much because I don't like the look of the grain, but I love 100 and have developed in xtol, hc110, and rodinal. Probably like the xtol 1:1 the best.

 

[braxus]

So there's no special layer like a rem jet coating for example? I just wonder why the movie film version needs special attention?

 

[abruzzi]

if you buy the Fomapan 100, 200, 320, or 400 in photo packs, the are regular still photo films--no remjet, but the do have an anti-halation dye (like most films) that washes out. I do a pre-wash before developing. But its not harmful like remjet is.

 

[braxus]

Ok maybe it was the dye I was thinking of. I prewash old school emulsions on occassion. Efke 25 really has a blue color (or was it pink?) when prewashing.

 

[Wallendo]

Foma 100, 200, and 400 do not require special developers. I have used XTOL, Rodinal, D-76 and HC-110 on these with good results. Foma does not recommend HC-110 but many users still use this.

The 320 version, Foma Retropan Soft, is recommended by FOMA to be developed with a special developer, I have tried developing this with HC-110, but found the images to be very low contrast with prominent grain

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I used Fomapan 100 for a couple of years. Nice film, no issues, and I really liked it on foggy or rainy days. Here is an example from Vicksburg, Mississippi, from my Fuji GW690II. Since then, I have returned to using Tri-X, but the Fomapan is fine.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the old days 120 and 4X5 had a blue dye in the anti-halation layer that would turn the developer blue, and 120 had a blue base, printed fine but was odd, I had a hard time judging contrast of a negative. I would give my Foma a pre wash to get rid of the die, as I recall, likely wrong, 35mm did not have the blue dye.

 

[braxus]

Well it doesnt hurt to do a prewash, even if it doesnt need it. I ordered two rolls of 100 and 2 of 400 in 35mm. I have read these films scratch easily, so I will have to make sure I roll them on the reel easy.

 

[koraks]

as I recall, likely wrong, 35mm did not have the blue dye.

Not wrong! 35mm foma doesn't have an antihalation dye.
Also, foma films (at least 100, 200 & 400) develop fine in xtol; in fact, it's one of my preferred developers for this film.

 

[relistan]

So there's no special layer like a rem jet coating for example? I just wonder why the movie film version needs special attention?

You were thinking of Fomapan R100 which is their special purpose reversal/slide film also available in 16mm for movies. This film has a silver based antihalation backing that makes it unsuitable for negative processing. That's different from Fomapan 100.

 

[iakustov]

Not wrong! 35mm foma doesn't have an antihalation dye.
Also, foma films (at least 100, 200 & 400) develop fine in xtol; in fact, it's one of my preferred developers for this film.

Indeed, I use Foma 100 35mm in bulk, it doesn't have antihalation dye. Developed film does not curl at all which is nice. I expose it at EI 80, develop in home-brew D76 1:1 and like the results.

 

[HeikoW]

Fomapan 100 (and 400) are classical films. Esp. Foma 100 tends to burned out lights/whites if developed e.g. in Rodinal/Adonal. Adox FX39 works better for me but still shows this tendency. Foma 200 is a different type of emulsion, more modern, more T-Grain like and doesn't show this behaviour. In the meanwhile I prefer Foma 200 to Foma 100.

 

[relistan]

Fomapan 100 in XTOL stock is a good combo

 

[R.Gould]

I use Fomapan 200 and 400, mainly 400, which I expose at 250, develop in either 1d11 stock or Rodinal 1/50, 120 does have a green AH layer, I have never pre washed films, and the AH layer come out in developer, but doesn't affect the way it works, I still get 10 rolls per 1 litre, in 35mm you get grain, but I find the grain nice, and 35mm does not have a AH layer, the wet emulsion tends to be soft,on both 120 and 35mm, so does need careful handling nothing should touch the emulsion side when wet, with 35mm I use a kitchen pad to wipe down the base, only, I like the film, I never use anything else , it is a old fashioned film and has a look of it's own.no problems with QC issues, and I have made 20/16 exhibtion prints from both 35mm and 120.
Richard

 

[sterioma]

For what is worth, I have a post comparing Fomapan 100 in three different developers: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...test-d23-vs-rodinal-vs-hc-110-in-35mm.182843/

Fomapan 100 is my "standard" slow/medium speed film and so far I have only had issues with one batch, but pre-washing it for a few minutes fixed it (it had to do with the anti-halation layer).

I have shot one my favourite recent photos with Fomapan 100 (EI 50) in Rodinal (scan from print):

 

[Jonno85uk]

No special dev apart from extra care with the 200. AH dye in 120. I do a pre-wash with 120 if I'm using indicator stop.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Fomapan 100 in XTOL stock is a good combo

View attachment 274141

Very good tone indeed!

 

[relistan]

Very good tone indeed!

Thanks!

 

[radiant]

Fomapan 100 in XTOL stock is a good combo

I think Fomapan 100 is commonly "approved" film but then there are these two 200 and 400 which are breed of their own. Foma 100 works like it should and it has a bit that nice old film vibe. But in general very well performing film. I use it in 120 and 5x7" formats and there is nothing I can complain about it.

 

[relistan]

I think Fomapan 100 is commonly "approved" film but then there are these two 200 and 400 which are breed of their own. Foma 100 works like it should and it has a bit that nice old film vibe. But in general very well performing film. I use it in 120 and 5x7" formats and there is nothing I can complain about it.

Yes I would agree. They are the only manufacturer offering a set of films that are theoretically in the same line but so different.